BHAGWANDAS RANCHODDAS MODI Vs. NATWARLAL MAGANLAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have brought this suit against the defendant for an order that the defendant may be directed and ordered to render a true and complete account of his management of the trusts referred to in the plaint and of the trust securities and proceeds thereof and interest of the securities and all other trust monies on the footing that the defendant is guilty of misappropriating the funds belonging to the said trusts. That is prayer (a) of the plaint. Prayers (b), (c) and (d) are ancillary to that prayer. Prayers (e), (f) and (g) refer to interim reliefs. Prayer (h) is in these terms: That the amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs as trustees with interest may be ascertained and declared and that the defendant may be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs such sum as may be found due, and to make good to the plaintiffs all sums and the value of securities misapplied or appropriated by him. " Prayer (i) says that the defendant may be removed from his office as a trustee of the said trusts.

(2.) IT appears that one Devkorebai, widow of Thaker Damoder Laxmidas, made a will dated October 14, 1891. Under the provisions of that will, she directed that diverse sums should be set apart for the benefit of the charities mentioned in that will. One of such charities was to be at Mundra in Cutch where a temple was to be built wherein the "thakorji" was to be installed, and there are provisions in the will as regards expenses in connection with the worship of the "thakorji" and for the outlay in connection with the installation of the "thakorji". Bai Devkorebai by her will also provided for three other trusts; one in respect of a sadavarat at Bet Dwarka, another for a dharmashala at Sidhpur and a third in respect of a sadavarat and dharmashala at Giriraj Hill. Mr. M. P. Amin tells me that Giriraj Hill is near Muttra. Mr. K. K. Desai tells me that it is in the Bharatpur State. The case, however, has been argued before me on the footing that Giriraj Hill is in the Bharatpur State.

(3.) THE defendant has filed his written statement. It is admitted in that written statement that there were securities of the total face value of Rs. 77,000 belonging to the four trusts. THE defendant says that to the knowledge of the plaintiffs all the said securities which were lying in the safe custody accounts had been withdrawn from time to time by the defendant at the instance of the plaintiffs themselves and either deposited as security in the overdraft account and/or sold for the purpose of payments of the amounts drawn from the overdraft account and/or the debts or purposes of the plaintiffs. THE defendant denies that he had operated upon the safe custody accounts or the current accounts or the overdraft account for his own purpose as suggested except for small amounts used for Harnath Mission. He says that all the accounts were operated upon for the purpose of payment of the debts of plaintiff No.1 and/or for the purpose of the trusts. That, in substance, is the only defence on the merits that the defendant has got to raise.